Conservation models
and wildlife governance

Objectives

1. Describe the 7 tenets (pillars) of the North American Model of Wildlife Management
2. Describe alternatives to the North American Model
3. Provide a critique of the North American Model
4. Describe the how governance of wildlife resources has changed over time.

Models of wildlife management

Systems (organized and not) of wildlife management are guided by:

• history and culture
• centralization of responsibility
• funding mechanisms

Models of wildlife management

North American Model of Conservation

• a paradigm of what has been done in NA along with some what should be done

Seven tenets (pillars, sisters)

1. Wildlife is a public trust
2. Elimination of markets for game
3. Wildlife is allocated by law
4. Kill only for legitimate purposes
5. Wildlife is an international resources
6. Wildlife policy is based on science
7. Democracy of hunting

Wildlife is a public trust

Thoughts?

Elimination of game markets

Thoughts?

Wildlife is allocated by law

Thoughts?

Kill only for legitimate purposes

Thoughts?

Wildlife is an international resources

Thoughts?

Democracy of hunting for all

Science is the backbone to wildlife policy

Bill Proposes Limiting Citizen Input On FWP Decisions

Thoughts?

Wildlife management can’t happen without funding

Overview of the criticisms of the NAM as characterised in the Peterson et al. reading

1. Neglect of important stakeholders

2. Overt focus on game species

3. Reality is much more fluid and “grey” than described

4. Undefined use of legitimate and proper

5. Ignores the role that values are incorporated into wildlife management and conservation

6. Funding mechanisms and the “tyranny of the minority”

Critiques of the NAM

Descriptive critiques

• Overly simplistic view of who are wildlife stakeholders
  • stymie diversity
  • complacency among managers
• All accounts of history involve framing, so the choices made in eliminating details, not the act of eliminating them, are where problems may arise.

Those in power write the history, while those who suffer write the songs
          ― Frank Harte

• Focus on the roles of hunters and hunting, rather than also acknowledge the role of naturalists

Descriptive critiques

• increased diversity among the wildlife conservation community is viewed as critical
  • historical NAM neglects the role of women, minorities, or non-hunters
  • example: those that gave rise to the golden age of environmental protection and the migratory bird treaty act

• dangerous complacency among wildlife managers by emphasizing wildlife conservation successes and deemphasizing failures
  • saving game species from the brink of extinction, and many include consideration of non-game waterfowl saved from the plume trade
• nongame species often excluded in wildlife management
• exotic species viewed treated as beneficial when introduced for hunting

Descriptive critiques

• the emphasis of saving game species has occurred during the Anthropocene (Holocene) extinction

• “no surprise that the conservation biology field would splinter from the wildlife management field and then rapidly rival this discipline in terms of professional society membership, and arguably global impact, diversity, and scientific impact”

• terms connoting permanence including “seven sisters,” “pillars”, a “foundation for wildlife conservation,” “bedrock”, “fundamental policies” , and having “endured the test of time”

  • Commerical markets for fur, herpetofauna, fish
  • the “Texas Model”
  • Reality policy is more variable and dynamic

Prescriptive critiques

• Every wildlife conservation decision is accompanied with a value based judgment about what objectives should be manifest

• Legitimacy as established by what some hunters consider legitimate but provides no rational bases for those choices

Consider the tenet that says wildlife may only be killed for legitimate reasons, this principle is as basic and appropriate as it is void of useful insight about defining a legitimate purpose.

• Science is the “proper” way to manage wildlife
  • Many final decisions are made by non-scientists and can be politically motivated
  • Scientifically derived facts cannot dictate choices without the application of values
• Tyranny of the minority
  • legitimate use of wildlife that centers around hunting and trapping contributes to a form of governance where a small minority shapes management impacting a good that everyone has an ownership of

So wtf do we do?

Messy or wicked problems

Public trust thinking

What is public trust thinking?

Clarifying terms

• An expansive definition of “wildlife”, possibly encompassing all non-domesticated taxa and acknowledging the interdependence of species
  • Challenge: no public wildlife agency has jurisdiction over all species, let alone land uses that affect habitat
• Fairness is construed as equal consideration among all current beneficiaries and among generations of beneficiaries
  • all values and interests in wildlife are legitimate
  • Challenge: future beneficiaries can not participate in management decisions

Increasing authority and capacity

Clarifying roles and responsibilities of trust administrators

• Uncertainty about who is responsible for wildlife trust administration impedes effective conservation
  • Challenge: structure and authorities of agencies largely reflect the historical context that they were established
    • public wildlife agencies may not currently have the funding, capacity, legal authority, or organizational flexibility to operate in ways consistent with PTT
    • Increase the collaborative governance among stakeholders
      

What is a stakeholder?

Practicing impartiality and avoiding bias

Overcoming institutional resistance to change

Promoting public adoption of PTT

• Optimally functioning requires: 1) informed beneficiaries,

2. individuals aware of their entitlements and obligations, 3) engaged throughout wildlife decision-making processes from information gathering, through planning and implementation, to mechanisms of appeal and accountability

• Trustees are obliged to consider the interests of beneficiaries who do not or cannot express their interests in wildlife issues
  • Challenge: Managers must actively seek out and engage stakeholders
  • Problems with trust (history) and knowledge
  • Most members of public are not engaged

Increasing focus on performance, measurement, and accountability

• Clear metrics that beneficiaries can assess trustees’performance, as well as transparent decision-making processes and mechanisms for beneficiaries to challenge decisions that fall short of trust standards

• Systematic and timely measurement, evaluation, accountability, and reporting processes through

  • improve the sensitivity and responsiveness (adaptability) of the system, sharpen conservation objectives, and increase confidence in and credibility of public wildlife governance

Legitimizing decision-making processes

• Trustees are expected to be impartial yet wildlife decision making in the United States is inherently political
  • trustees are appointed
  • policies they pursue (think back to the portrayl of the Washington Commissioners)
  • non-transparent decisions

Recognizing and informing beneficiaries of the inherent risks of decision alternatives, including the risks associated with making no change, will allow trust administrators to negotiate paths forward with beneficiaries informed of potential positive and negative consequences of different courses of action.

Alternative wildlife models

Many different systems exist across the world and vary based on 1) ownership of wildlife, 2) how conservation is funded, 3) who manages the populations, and 4) access on private lands

Wildlife governance

• Governance is the combinations of all the mechanisms and instruments used to steer society

  • local to global
  • transboundary and transauthority issues

• Authority on who uses goverance can vary from a strong top down approach to a collaborative approach.

• Collaborative governance involves state and federal agencies, IGOs, NGOs, universities, industry, and the public

• Wildlife is managed within the context of the governance structure

State wildlife commissions

• Almost every state there is an appointed volunteer commission or board that either oversees or advises the wildlife agency

  • Only four states (MN, NY, CT, RI) do not have wildlife commissions

  • Oversight commissions (38 states), duties vary by state but include setting policy and budget for the agency, rule-making, and hiring (and firing) the agency’s director

  • Advisory commissions (8 states; AL, DE, IL, ME, MD, ND, SD, WV)

• Commissions range in size from four to 19 seats, with most being in the 7-11 range

• Members are usually appointed by the governor, often requiring confirmation by the state senate

  • Many states require that at least some commission seats be reserved for hunters, anglers, trappers, and/or agricultural representatives
  • Some states (e.g. North Dakota, Mississippi) prohibit non-consumptive users from serving on their commissions

Collaborative governance

What are farm bill biologists?

Compliance with regulations